« I may be some time | Main | Fire drill »
03/28/2005
Bad mother, good wife
Ayelet Waldman is a bad mother.
Hey, hey, I'm just quoting. That's what she claims:
The article I linked above describes the consuming desire Waldman feels for her husband, novelist Michael Chabon, a passion that eclipses her love for their four kids. From her writing I infer that she's happy to the point of complacency in being a bad mother as long as she's still a good wife.
But is that even possible?
Paul and I are barely on the cusp of this new phase in our partnership, where we're learning to modulate our own needs to accomodate Charlie's. I'm just beginning to understand how carefully I'll have to negotiate those needs, sometimes doing what's right for Charlie at the expense of our relationship, sometimes doing precisely the opposite, only hoping I misjudge as seldom as possible. I'll make mistakes; I already have. What matters is the trying.
To talk about who I love more, my husband or my child, as Waldman does, seems meaningless — they're part of each other. Although Paul and I have a relationship separate from Charlie, just as Charlie and I have one apart from Paul, just as the two of them do, for now we are mostly a triad. No one of us comes first right now. We have to come together.
So how can I be a good wife if I'm not also a good mother to the small creature we made together? How does it honor the man you love to be a bad mother to your children?
I think it's possible, just, to be a good mother and a bad wife. (I've seen enough divorces to believe that.) But does it work the other way? Can you be a bad mother and still be a good wife?
Posted by Julie at 04:23 PM in I've learned a lot...but I'm not sure it's worth it. | Permalink
Comments (112)
Great points......and for the record I don't think it is possible to be a *truly* bad mother and a good wife.
But by bad mother, I'm not talking about the kinds of things you typically see like when a mom declares herself to be the worst in the world because she didn't breastfeed/can't figure out why the baby is crying/made an honest mistake, etc.
Posted by: Mandy at Mar 28, 2005 4:33:05 PM
We tend to make decisions along the lines of socialism: To each according to her needs, from each according to his abilities. So who gets priority varies from moment to moment, although the younger you are, the more likely you are to be a priority.
I wonder about the term "bad" wife/husband. I know people who got divorced because they just couldn't be happy together, and they worked to do everything possible to look out for the kids' needs. I don't think of them as bad spouses, just incompatible.
I also know people who got divorced because of infidelity and other serious transgressions, and it's hard for me to see someone who would trash a relationship that gave security to their children as a good parent.
And I know that's judgmental of me, but the parents who were self-absorbed enough to do such damage to their relationships never seemed to pull it together when it came to the kids, either. I'm looking forward to reading stories that prove me wrong/woefully ignorant. I promise to repent appropriately.
Posted by: Slim at Mar 28, 2005 4:43:18 PM
Yes, I'm working with Waldman's term here, but the good/bad thing is very much an oversimplification.
Posted by: Julie at Mar 28, 2005 4:48:26 PM
Possible, yes; but you would have to wait around twenty years to ask the kids if you fit in that catagory. When my kids were young, I would try as much as possible to handle the nighttime wake-ups myself. One could argue that I was being a good wife, since I was trying to let my husband sleep, but a bad mother, since I wasn't giving the kids the opportunity to be handled by someone fresh who still had some patience and temper left. But I doubt this is what will put them in therapy when they're teens.
Posted by: rivka at Mar 28, 2005 4:49:47 PM
Nancy Reagan. I'd type more, but my nursing baby is trying to roll off my lap and on to the floor...
Posted by: T at Mar 28, 2005 4:57:47 PM
That was interesting. I sometimes think that the better mother I am, the worse wife I am, but really, our husbands want what's best for the babies, too. I think that we should both just keep doing our best (You are truly amazing, by the way!) and be grateful that we have llving husbands that will most likely understand and know it will get better. Wait, it will get better, right? Yes, definitely! I haven't said it lately because I am a poor-ass commenter, but I admire you!
Posted by: Carrie at Mar 28, 2005 5:12:36 PM
When El Chico was a few months old my husband and I somehow got into a stupid discussion that went something along the lines of my saying, "You know I love you, but if something was happening and I had to save him or you..." and my husband jumping in with "I hope you'd save him, because I'd totally let you die to save him! If you saved me and let him die I'd hate you!"
Negotiating the needs does change vastly over time as your child grows, though. When you have a tiny child who cries all the time, it seems so hard to imagine a time when you can just say to that child, "I'm on the phone right now. You can pour your own milk. And bring your father a beer when you go back into the living room."
Posted by: Moxie at Mar 28, 2005 5:18:59 PM
Sure, I'll buy that but at that point we're talking, too, about wants instead of just needs.
Posted by: Julie at Mar 28, 2005 5:22:36 PM
I think I'm just tired of mothers who are so invested in telling the world why they are right and everyone else is wrong.
When I read Waldman's article, I felt like it was a treatise on why she "wins" rather than the women who love their children more than their spouses.
Why are women so insistent on competing with each other in weird, twisted ways? Why can't they take up tennis or running or golf for competition rather than competing through the self-described quality of their relationships (both with spouses and children)?
And THAT is why I will never join a mommy and me group. :)
Posted by: Mindy at Mar 28, 2005 5:25:51 PM
sure you can be a bad mother and a good wife -- if your husband is a deranged narcissist who wants his own needs to come first at every single given moment, and if you're willing to put up with that kind of crap. or if you have some kind of psycho need for his love above all else.
Posted by: terry at Mar 28, 2005 5:30:11 PM
Here's the thing:
I love my son as a son. As a child. And I am full up with the love for my child. I am overflowing with the child love.
I love my husband as my husband. As my best friend and confidant. Someone to lean on the way I will not lean on my child. Someone to lust after, to snuggle with in just that way. Someone to negotiate life with, and plan forever.
Love is not a zero-sum game. I always worry about people who claim that love is "more". You may love your child or your spouse more intensly at any given time.
When your baby is being adorable and needs you, you are allowed to be overflowing with love for your baby. When your snuggled down with your spouse, you are permitted to stop overflowing with baby love and start overflowing with spouse love.
I think one of the problems is that women in particular equate love as taking care of. And I think there's a lot of guilt with new mothers about spending all their time taking care of the baby and trying to snatch moments for themselves.
You know what? Your husband is an adult and loves the baby as fully as you do. He understands that right now your worry is focused on the baby. He knows (or he should) that if he were to suddenly need you, you'd get someone to watch the baby and be there for him.
You certainly can stop loving your husband and love your baby. You can stop loving your baby and love your husband. But you don't HAVE to do either, and I think that people that decide that that choice must be made are screwing themselves. And that's bad.
Andy and I are focused on the boy right now. He's better at remembering that we also need to focus on each other, but I remember, too. I love the baby with a new overflowing love that seems so intense that it outshines my love for my husband. It doesn't though. The baby love is just newer and more immediately needy.
It's not a zero-sum game. Love them both, the way that they should be loved. Just as you'd love a second child as much as your first, but differently.
Krissy
P.S. - If either one of us is in a position where we have to save the baby or the other person, we have talked about it and we save the baby. Both of us are willing to die for the baby, so if it comes to that we do that. Period. And we don't love and need each other any less for that decision, we just recognize responsibility.
Posted by: Krissy at Mar 28, 2005 5:38:10 PM
Reading Waldman's essay made me feel like I had a rash. "I get laid all the time because my husband and I are HOT. And I'd really be okay if the kids dropped dead as long as I didn't lose my man." Huh? It's my sense that most couples decide TOGETHER to put the kids first, and to form a tight-knit family bond that way. I know it's a gift to any child to see that his or her parents love and support each other, but Waldman and spouse seem a bit...extreme.
More sex would be nice, in theory, but by itself, it doesn't define marital love. Devotion, fidelity, shared goals, commitment, and (for those with kids) good co-parenting are crucial. Being a good mother to my son is just about the greatest gift I can give my husband, and I am endlessly grateful that he is a fantastic dad. Being devoted to our son has strengthened our bond to one another.
Thanks for opening up this discussion (and for seeing it my way!).
Posted by: Orange at Mar 28, 2005 5:40:01 PM
Reading Waldman's essay made me feel like I had a rash. "I get laid all the time because my husband and I are HOT. And I'd really be okay if the kids dropped dead as long as I didn't lose my man." Huh? It's my sense that most couples decide TOGETHER to put the kids first, and to form a tight-knit family bond that way. I know it's a gift to any child to see that his or her parents love and support each other, but Waldman and spouse seem a bit...extreme.
More sex would be nice, in theory, but by itself, it doesn't define marital love. Devotion, fidelity, shared goals, commitment, and (for those with kids) good co-parenting are crucial. Being a good mother to my son is just about the greatest gift I can give my husband, and I am endlessly grateful that he is a fantastic dad. Being devoted to our son has strengthened our bond to one another.
Thanks for opening up this discussion (and for seeing it my way!).
Posted by: Orange at Mar 28, 2005 5:40:05 PM
I'm not going to read even this relatively small stream of previous comments because I'm trying to save my marriage. Ha. Only half-joking.
Where you're at now is absolutely 100% appropriate with a newborn, where all bets are off. But it's a very, very good thing that you already have stocked this question in your brain, because the tricky part is figuring out when to revisit the idea that there really is a difference between a happy family and a happy marriage. I guess everyone just negotiates this in their own way, and continues to re-negotiate it over time, time, and time again ... but ignore it at your peril, because I really am not kidding, though this issue was not the only factor, it's one of the majors that came within a hair's breadth of costing us our marriageâand the really weird part was, we didn't have the faintest idea until it was almost too late. And now we're all about the babysitters and scheduling time away and saying 'no' to some of the triad time.
gosh that got long quick.
Posted by: jilbur at Mar 28, 2005 5:58:52 PM
The others have pretty much got it right here (imo) already. If the husband/father is a good one of those, then the good wife and the good mother roles merge, just as the good husband and good father roles merge.
If the husband's a narcissist, or infantile himself, or subject to any one of the myriad failures of man, then you have the diversion of good wife/mother -- and the same applies (in obverse) to the husband/father.
The burning building thing (who would you save) is, despite its ridiculousness, a good way to approach this. Because even if you balance out all the factors (who could likely save themselves, who would help with any other children, etc) you're still left with the one you can't balance out. The father will want you to save the child more than he would want you to save him (the father). And the child -- no matter how nice and kind and sweet he is, no matter how old -- will always, deep down, prefer that you save the child as well.
If everyone's healthy, that is. Of course you can point to counterexamples in the world today. But I don't know if that undercuts the argument.
There's Torah on this. (You knew I was going to say that, didn't you?) But not now. Day job. Even though it's not day anymore.
--FD
Posted by: FrumDad at Mar 28, 2005 6:04:56 PM
HOLY CRAP! These are some of the smartest and most well written comments I have ever read.. Bravo smart readers !
Posted by: Melissa at Mar 28, 2005 6:37:19 PM
Ewwww... this woman gives me the creeps. I can't relate to her at all. I don't know what mommy-and-me groups she goes to but none of my groups are competing about how much lovin' we're getting or how hot we are.
Just like the Warner book, it seems like the media is giving play to books right now about some alternate view of parenthood that I just can't get into. Umm... I love my husband. I'd be lost without him. I'd be heartbroken. But I've had 17 wonderful years with him and 7 of those years married. (Yes, he's my high school sweetheart). I've only had 2 short years with my precious daughter. Without her, my heart would shatter into a million pieces, my soul ripped from body, and I'm not sure how I'd survive it. I'm quite certain my hubby feels the same as I do.
Does that mean I'm a bad wife? I doubt it. If she's so whacked out in love with her famous husband and doesn't think her kids are so viatal to her life, she should try a life without children. Try going through what some of us here in the IF and MC world have gone through and I suspect she'd chane her tune.
What's next... the guy from the "Babywise" books goes on a national book tour to promote his theories about starving newborns and tying down the hands of curious toddlers to teach them proper manners at the table. The special feature will be some proclamation about how critical it is to let babies cry it out during the evenings while parents enjoy their couple time together because the parental marriage, and more important parental dominance, is g*ds natural order of things. Now there's a freakshow.
Sorry to hijack the comments.... I'm just getting so tired of these hacks selling books and actually making money based on stupid assvice.
Posted by: Kat at Mar 28, 2005 6:40:59 PM
My mother always loved her husband (my stepfather) more than us kids. We all knew that.
I still resent it.
She loved (loves) her husband at the expense of her love for us. And we suffered.
But then I've loved my son more than anybody else in the world, and he hates me.
It's a conundrum.
Posted by: Scully at Mar 28, 2005 6:49:16 PM
For what it's worth, at one point Ayelet Waldman had a blog - you can find it right here - which she stopped maintaining when she was offered a column at Salon.
It's some interesting reading, that blog is. I don't know where I come down on the bad mother/bad wife/good mother/good wife stuff, but she's definitely a thought-provoking writer.
Posted by: Rachel at Mar 28, 2005 6:49:26 PM
I don't know about socialism or bad mothering or any of that but I do know that it's a damned good thing we aren't all married to Pulitzer Prize winning hotties or the human race might not survive. We'd be too busy bonking to keep the baby from sticking her finger into the light socket.
ha ha - that's a joke.
Love defies measurement and that's what is missing in her article. She doesn't even pose the theoretical Sophie's Choice scenario to test her hypothesis. She's just wondering how it is she has so much ardor and sexual energy for her husband when all the other Mommies are claiming they use up what they've got on their kids. Her whole "I'm a bad mother because of it" line strikes me as a defense against her sense that others see it that way if not straight literary shtick.
Fun read. Thanks for the link and please don't worry about yourself. Your baby is way too young and was way too sick for far too long for you to be doing a comparative analysis. You love Paul and you and Paul love Charlie and you are all loving your new family. Good times.
Posted by: 21stCenturyMom at Mar 28, 2005 6:49:58 PM
ps - I don't believe that thing about how she could go on just fine if her kids died but not her husband. Nope - not at all.
Posted by: 21stCenturyMom at Mar 28, 2005 6:51:09 PM
Wow, I feel sorry for her children. Hope she foots the therapy bills.
Posted by: Candi at Mar 28, 2005 7:00:01 PM
I didn't read the article but what an odd thing to say. I have four kids and I can definately say that I would be devastated if one. I've already lost a child. I don't put my husband over my children. I respect the fact that I will be with my husband alot longer then my children with me. I try not to the every day wear down our marriage but I think love is an idividual thing. I love my husband for different reasons then I love my kids. I didn't carry my husband in my womb. Some people are odd! I feel for people like this.
Posted by: jenni at Mar 28, 2005 7:07:28 PM
I didn't read the article but what an odd thing to say. I have four kids and I can definately say that I would be devastated if one died. I've already lost a child. I don't put my husband over my children. I respect the fact that I will be with my husband alot longer then my children with me. I try not to the every day wear down our marriage but I think love is an idividual thing. I love my husband for different reasons then I love my kids. I didn't carry my husband in my womb. Some people are odd! I feel for people like this.
Posted by: jenni at Mar 28, 2005 7:08:18 PM
I had a really hard time with that article. I was fine with the distinction between being in love with her husband vs. loving her children. I even get that it takes some time to start bonding with a newborn. I'm happy for her that she till gets lots of sex.
What I found really bothersome was how many times she said she loved her husband more than she loved her children. Not DIFFERENTLY. More. And, in case you didn't understand what that meant, she said that while she could not imagine life without her husband, she COULD imagine life without one or all of her children. And I guess she can't help it if that's the way she feels, but she CAN help preventing this fact in the NY Times.
For the record, a bad mother or wife in my book is someone who is neglectful and/or abusive. This woman qualifies as emotionally abusive in my book by PUBLISHING THE FACT THAT SHE LOVES HER KIDS LESS IN THE NY TIMES. Anyone else who is living their lives, making their choices and doing their best is a good mother or wife.
Posted by: Cat, Galloping at Mar 28, 2005 7:17:11 PM
Interestingly, she links Julie in her blog.
Also, did you notice the names of her books? Death gets a Time-out? A Playdate with Death? The Big Nap?
Whoa.
Posted by: Stephanie at Mar 28, 2005 7:23:39 PM
I've known a number of mothers (my own included) who had children from previous marriages and when they remarried, put their children second (or even further down the list). Their focus was on their husbands and not at all their children. This ranges from forgetting a child's birthday to forcing them to move in with the other parent because, "I have a new spouse now and need to focus my attention on him."
In that respect, you can absolutely be a good wife and bad (sometimes awful) mother.
Other than that, if the mother and father are married, I agree with whoever said you can be a good wife AND bad mother only if the father is narcicistic (and an asshole at that), placing his needs above and beyond his children's.
Posted by: Drama Queen at Mar 28, 2005 7:34:16 PM
Wow. To me that's like comparing apples and oranges. Spousal love is just different to how one feels about one's kids. I also don't think that love = good parent or spouse. There's a whole lot more to it than that.
Her whole article seemed to be "I love my husband more than my kids, aren't I great." Um. No. Even if that is how you feel (and I still don't see how you can quantify it, since it's totally differing types of love) is there really a need to publish it to the world that you love your kids less? Is she trying to put them into therapy? To answer your question, if by good you merely mean loving, then yes you can be a bad mother and a good wife. But if you take a larger view, then I cannot see how neglecting a child in favour of the father makes one a good wife. Because the family is a unit - hurt one member and you're indirectly hurting the rest too. Just my 2cents.
Posted by: usually lurker at Mar 28, 2005 7:46:16 PM
I did read the article and found it profoundly interesting. On the one hand, I have been looking for the kind of love for a spouse that she describes and envy her that relationship. On the other, I can't figure out how she can be so blase about her children.
Having said that, though, I have to admit to having always been a bit puzzled by the mothers who put their children at the very center of their universe and give up everything they've done or are interested in for the sake of their children. My mother, always had things she was interested in and pursuits she enjoyed. Sure, she did what she could to help me do the things I wanted to try, but she didn't always bend over backwards to cater to my every whim.
And you know what? I'm grateful to her for it. Today I'm an extremely independent person who has a variety of interests and - most importantly - doesn't expect the world to revolve around me or people to hand me the moon on a silver platter.
Aside from the very beginnings of their lives - where they must come first because they are helpless, it seems to me that making children the center of a parent's universe is a bit unhealthy. That doesn't mean you can't love them with all your heart and soul. But it does seem a bit obsessive and, in some ways, gives the child such power. The children I see who are part of such relationships always seem to take everything they have for granted - they expect it. And what does that mean for them when they grow up??
Posted by: Zee at Mar 28, 2005 7:53:30 PM
I used to read her blog but stopped because I found her approach to life so different than my own. This just confirms it for me.
We've been married 12 1/2 years and had Miss Pink last October. Yeah, it's been a huge change to our relationship, but it's made us less selfish and worried about jockeying for position within our marriage. I'm a better mother than I am a wife in the sense that I take her needs and wants into account before his (but then again, I take mine into account first above anyone!). At the same time, I think that being a better mother to my husband's child makes him think more of me than if I were smokin' his bone all day and night. Not that he wouldn't like a little of that. ;)
Posted by: LPF at Mar 28, 2005 7:54:23 PM
Oh, how I love you people: smokin' his bone all day and night.
Posted by: Julie at Mar 28, 2005 8:29:23 PM
Stephanie, her books are murder mysteries with a SAHM slueth protagonist. Hence the titles.
I think the "bad mother" thing is her shtick. Like "Rachael Ray makes 30-minute meals" and "Dick Cheney is the anti-Christ," "Ayelet Waldman is the Bad Mother." It's a way to market herself. Personally, I'd choose "Moxie is an indifferent housekeeper" over proclaiming myself a Bad Mother.
Posted by: Moxie at Mar 28, 2005 8:30:13 PM
She is a Grade A Freak. To quote a friend, I don't love my liver more than than my lungs because I need both to be alive!
I think she is jealous of the kids, jealous of whatever attention her husband gives them, because if he's doing that he's not paying attention to Her, Her, Her...no matter how often she's smokin' his bone.
Posted by: cori at Mar 28, 2005 9:10:17 PM
I'm kind of in agreement with Cori. Ayelet (Eyelet!) seems a bit like a freakazoid to me.
Love for your children and love for your spouse are two totally different kinds of love - and it should be as such. It'd be a disgusting situation any other way.
I think the jealousy label definitely applies - and hand her a tiara while you're at it, because I'm pretty sure she thinks the world revolves around her.
You can't define a good mother just because of the nature of the game. A bad one? Yes.
Man, I sound judgmental - and I'm not, but she said she can imagine a life without her children, as in if she lost them, all of them! My Lord!
I'm finished now.
Please don't compare yourself to this woman or listen to her drivel. We all know how much you love Charlie and what you went through for him. And even lil' Charlie knows you rock.
Posted by: Abby at Mar 28, 2005 9:58:43 PM
I think she's downright creepy. I also think she just wanted to brag to the world that she has sex.
I don't have children (yet, ever optimistic) but I think it's a different love. I'm not even sure you can equate them. Maybe she is a bad mother for not getting it.
Posted by: Jenn at Mar 28, 2005 10:54:39 PM
I like her books, she brings an interesting angle to the mystery genre.
Posted by: MollieBee at Mar 28, 2005 11:00:16 PM
on a totally frivolous and catty note, gawker (gawker.com) has a funny item commenting on Waldman's piece today.
Posted by: another jenn at Mar 28, 2005 11:26:40 PM
Ayelet ROCKS!
The ol' senses of humor have flown the coop once again.
Read her blog to get a sense of her. She's a prolific writer - don't judge her from one essay. And considering that the essay is excerpted from a book of 33 moms, I'm glad that at least one essay from that book won't be sappy or about fairy dust.
No, she's not creepy. Her book titles might be, but that's capitalism and her genre. She's bipolar, so that's how she wrote something like 17 books in 6 months. From personal experience, I think bi-polar can give a real warped sense of humor.
The catch phrase of "Bad Mother" equates to "You might be a redneck if" although I could never vouch for what Jeff Foxworthy has or hasn't done. It is a way to be listened to. All she's saying is that she's not a martyr mom and that she doesn't fit with other martyr moms - the story of my life, too; she takes care of herself and her husband as well as her kids. She provides a good lesson about how it is negative for kids to be so central that they zap your soul. (aka Martyr mom). In her blog, she even called one of her kids homely - I used to say my infant son looked like a jr Phil Maher - the truth can be funny if ya just let your hair down. It's just not that serious, people. Besides, a good romp is what's very good for the soul.
Once in HS, I remember asking my father if he loved his 2 daughters or his wife more. He told me his wife. Considering their (loud) incompatability, I was surprised, but I wasn't scarred. I thought it was a good thing - even tho they were divorced a mere 5 years later. To me, that meant he loved his wife and tried.
Maybe most of the comments here are from people who do fit with the playgroup mentality. This could be an eye-opening wake up call as to why somebody doesn't come back their playgroup. And that those dissenters deserve huge respect for making choices/comments against the grain.
Posted by: Cricket at Mar 28, 2005 11:37:13 PM
I'm a strong, sassy, outspoken woman, and I admire other women in this genre.
However, I do not post about suicidal thoughts and let my husband find out while he's out of town reading my blog that I'm thinking of taking the big ride out of town.
I don't gleefully blog about how cool I'm gonna be when my kids start taking drugs. "Be sure to drink lots of water when you take Ecstacy"
I don't violate my family's privacy by posting intimate details of my children's life on the internet under my real name.
and if that makes me a boring, playgroup minded humorless ol' hag, well so fucking be it.
But for the record, my kids are 4 and 6, and I work full time and have never attended a playgroup, I bottle fed, smoke outdoors, slurp wine like a champeen, and get lots of hot monkey sex.
Posted by: jenna at Mar 28, 2005 11:59:11 PM
Funny. I was just thinking about this very thing today, and remembering the stories my grandmother told me about her experiences of being a wife and raising kids.
One thing she always wanted me to know is that she never wanted kids. She claimed that she and her husband caved in to the pressure from her father and his mother, and she always regretted it (even though she seems to be keen on having me in her life, which of course would not be the case if she hadn't had kids, obviously).
My grandmother is a pretty pure distillate of narcissism, and isn't comfortable unless she is being catered to, admired, etc. She married a man who was gruff, driven, and successful. He made lots of money, and they spent it together, taking cruises, jetting to Europe, buying expensive clothes and jewels. The kids (my mother and my uncle) were left in the care of "the help" for weeks at a time while all of this marital bliss was taking place.
My grandmother is very proud of the fact that she and her husband put their marriage first before the kids. She speaks with derision about her contemporaries, women who doted on their children who, when the children left, had nothing: no kids, and no relationship with their husbands, either.
She loves to talk about the sex they had, how great it was. Every chance she gets, she tells me to take time away from the kids, go away without them, etc. She needn't worry. I take plenty of time away from the kids. But I don't always bring my husband along.
Part of why I didn't want to jump into motherhood too soon was because I come from a long, long line of selfish, self-absorbed women who all begat heartbroken, resentful children. I am trying to walk a fine line: encouraging my kids to be individuals who are able to do as much as is age-allowing without my assistance, but making myself emotionally available to them in ways the other mothers before me could not. Putting my own needs way up high on the list, but not supplanting my obvious responsibilities to my dependents. Hiring the sitter, drinking the martinis, and getting laid, but not every night of the week.
I loathe extremes: the long-suffering, martyr mother; the can't-be-bothered, me-first mother. I'm doing what I can to split the difference.
Posted by: Mollie at Mar 29, 2005 12:12:25 AM
I kinda liked her before I read that piece. Most of us only fear that our mothers don't love us all that much, she PUT IT IN THE NY TIMES! Yeesh!
My mother, ambivilent as she was about marriage and motherhood (the last time at 41, when it was not oh so typical) was absolutly devestated when my brother died at age 14. Waldman's glibness was rather offensive. I hope she never has a change to test that theory; and good thing she and Mr Chabon are sucessful, therapy will be needed!
SArah
Posted by: Sarah at Mar 29, 2005 12:59:20 AM
I feel sorry for her children.
It's as if announcining she'd gladly sacrifice one of them to save her husband is supposed to prove to him (to all of us) how much more she loves her husband than the rest of us mere mortals.
Oh, and I think she's full of shit. God forbid she ever gets to test out her theory of how well she could get on without one of her expendable children so long as she hangs onto her husband.
Posted by: Kathleen at Mar 29, 2005 1:22:20 AM
Speaking as a bad wife (nearly divorced), who has a completely different relationship with her husband than with her son, I can say that while it's entirely possible to be a good mother while a bad wife, I don't think it's possible to be a good wife but bad mother. Perhaps the only thing my husband likes about me at present is the level of care I give our son. He wouldn't feel nearly as tolerantly towards me as he does if that weren't present.
Posted by: Anna at Mar 29, 2005 2:18:02 AM
Actually, I thought the last paragraph of that essay was rather sweet:
"I will tell them that I wish for them a love like I have for their father. I will tell them that they are my children, and they deserve both to love and be loved like that. I will tell them to settle for nothing less than what they saw when they looked at me, looking at him."
I really should be doing work, but instead I perused Ayelet's blog as well. She's a weird, witty woman. I get the impression that when she talks about being a bad mother, she's largely exaggerating to prove a point. She's appropriating the label "bad mother" because she thinks that's what she'll be labelled anyway, for admitting she lets a nanny take her kid to pre-school. It's fairly clear to me from her day-to-day entries that she does love her kids, and takes good care of them, and seems to think about them pretty constantly.
Sometimes I wonder if my mom is more into my dad than she is into me... she'd never admit it but I suspect that's the case. If I went looking, I could probably find lots of things I resent, but that is not one of them. In fact I'm delighted that at 63, they still do these totally cute coupley things.
Julie -- I really like your blog. best wishes.
Posted by: metamanda at Mar 29, 2005 5:56:45 AM
This is a quote from her blog :
"I’m terrified that one of children will come down with some mysterious and horrific disease – a virus that destroys their hearts, a broken leg that results in a blood clot that kills them. I’m afraid that all the jokes I’ve made about bad mothering will come back to haunt me and I will lose one of them forever."
By the way, she has your blog and grrl´s blog linked. She must be cool.
Posted by: Whichever at Mar 29, 2005 8:08:23 AM
Actually, I thought the last paragraph of that essay was rather sweet.
See, that's a part of the essay that I find particularly off-putting! It posits the idea that passion from a mate can and should make up for a lack of passion from a parent. Waldman doesn't shy away from asking her children to accept that idea; as for me, I hope my children never have to.
Posted by: Julie at Mar 29, 2005 8:37:50 AM
And, Whichever, I'm still left wondering which we are to believe: the slightly more gentle sentiments expressed in the more intimate medium of a blog, or the more callous ones trumpeted in the New York Times.
(I am not saying I think Waldman doesn't love her kids, incidentally, in case anyone is ready to read that into this comment or my post above. I'm not willing to believe that about anyone absent damning incontrovertible evidence.)
Posted by: Julie at Mar 29, 2005 8:47:57 AM
Yeah - I don't know about the good/bad line but I think it is possible to have a good marriage and not have done a great job with the kids.
My parents have a great relationship - for them. Part of that relationship involved letting both their children be fairly severed abused under their noses (mutually supporting each other's denial), and the support of a kind of narcissism (my mother's) that required that the children never rebel ever in any way, and eventually resulted in each of us having problems later on. But, as empty-nesters, they have the kind of relationship people admire and one probably hopes for after childrearing.
It came at a pretty high cost to us kids though.
Posted by: anon at Mar 29, 2005 8:55:32 AM
"Can you be a bad mother and still be a good wife?"
Probably not if the husband cares anything at all for his children, because if he sees his wife being a bad mother, it is probably going to effect the marriage negatively. And aren't children precious to a parent? How does it show love to that spouse to shortchange their children? But, you already said as much.
Oh, anyway, I sometimes just think these kinds of comments are so absurd. As you pointed out, we have relationships with different people, and it is probably impossible to say that you love one person more than another. In any event, it is entirely possible to love more than one person at a time with equal passion. A similar topic is posted on Tertia's blog, having more to do with choosing whose needs to meet first rather than discussing whom you love more. My primal instinct is to preserve my son's life above everyone else's. Does that mean I love him MORE? I don't know. I love my husband so much, and it's with him that I share my life. Our relationship is like no other. He is my mate. But I couldn't imagine a world without my sister in it--if something happened to her, I don't know how I could go on. She is my history, she shares my past. Who do I love "more?"
Just a nonsense question, in my humble opinion.
Posted by: wessel at Mar 29, 2005 9:22:07 AM
I don't think there are any absolutes like "good" and "bad" in love, marriage, or parenting. We all have good and bad days in the parenting trenches, just as we all have days when we can pretty much bet we've blown our nomination for Spouse of the Day.
Saying "good" or "bad" takes us down that slippery slope of perfectionism, which doesn't serve us well as partners or parents, IMHO.
Posted by: Ann D at Mar 29, 2005 9:35:35 AM
